Idiotic Environmental Predictions

[istodolez]

Good luck finding those tables. I was already there. Like I said, the data appears to have been scrubbed.

In the document in the link there's this table showing pH measuring stations by year.

It is not an easy matter to find detailed data, and part of that is because the data is still spread across countless individual researchers' and excursion data sets. There's an ongoing initiative called the OOI (Oceanographic Observatories Initiative) that aims to make a vast amount of data freely available between researchers and, if I understood it, ultimately to the general public. I'm not entirely certain that it is quite to that point yet.

We KNOW there is pH data but it is less in the past than it is today. But we are not completely reliant on the direct measurement of pH (instrumental record). Paleo-ocean pH data is available through other means such as Boron isotopes (SOURCE).

Further we know a great deal about how added atmospheric CO2 impacts pH in the ocean (it is not as directly simple as dissolving CO2 which, as any freshman chem student knows, drops the pH) but is a bit more complex (HERE).

An increase in atmospheric CO2 (for a given value of alkalinity or ΣDIC) will result in a decrease in the pH of surface waters. For example, increasing atmospheric pCO2 from the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv (parts per million by volume) to its present day value of ∼370 ppmv would result in a decrease in pH from 8.18 to 8.08.

(Ibid)

ie: probably not "scrubbed". No one is hiding anything from anyone.

 

[Threegoofs]

Good luck finding those tables. I was already there. Like I said, the data appears to have been scrubbed.

Sure.,

The giant worldwide conspiracy and all.

 

[Glitch]

Good luck finding those tables. I was already there. Like I said, the data appears to have been scrubbed.

Why would you presume the data has been scrubbed?

It could be, and most likely is, just very poor data collection or bogus data. The NASA GIS data is in the same condition before 1920. For example, there is no data at all for Anchorage temperatures prior to 1917 because the city didn't exist. There is no temperature data at all for any town above the Arctic Circle before 1910.

The lack of data, and the spotty bogus data they did manage to collect, all adds to the margin for error. However, it does not mean NASA scrubbed its GIS data.

NOAA is presenting the data that they have, and correctly assessing its value. In this case they flat-out state that the ocean pH data that was collected prior to 1989 is not of a good enough quality to draw any conclusions about historical pH levels during the last century.

 

[Lord of Planar]

In the document in the link there's this table showing pH measuring stations by year.

It is not an easy matter to find detailed data, and part of that is because the data is still spread across countless individual researchers' and excursion data sets. There's an ongoing initiative called the OOI (Oceanographic Observatories Initiative) that aims to make a vast amount of data freely available between researchers and, if I understood it, ultimately to the general public. I'm not entirely certain that it is quite to that point yet.

We KNOW there is pH data but it is less in the past than it is today. But we are not completely reliant on the direct measurement of pH (instrumental record). Paleo-ocean pH data is available through other means such as Boron isotopes (SOURCE).

Further we know a great deal about how added atmospheric CO2 impacts pH in the ocean (it is not as directly simple as dissolving CO2 which, as any freshman chem student knows, drops the pH) but is a bit more complex (HERE).


(Ibid)

ie: probably not "scrubbed". No one is hiding anything from anyone.

Thing is, years back, I have seen the studies that showed the ocean pH was lower than today. Modern search engines tend to generate only popular searches and paid for links as results. I have not been able to find the papers I have seen before.

I miss Alta Vista.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sure.,

The giant worldwide conspiracy and all.

That's not what I believe. The digital world just has too much information to sort through and find when using search engines that favor profit.

I wish you would stop baiting me with such remarks. It would be nice, if for once, you had something productive to add to a debate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Why would you presume the data has been scrubbed?

It could be, and most likely is, just very poor data collection or bogus data. The NASA GIS data is in the same condition before 1920. For example, there is no data at all for Anchorage temperatures prior to 1917 because the city didn't exist. There is no temperature data at all for any town above the Arctic Circle before 1910.

The lack of data, and the spotty bogus data they did manage to collect, all adds to the margin for error. However, it does not mean NASA scrubbed its GIS data.

NOAA is presenting the data that they have, and correctly assessing its value. In this case they flat-out state that the ocean pH data that was collected prior to 1989 is not of a good enough quality to draw any conclusions about historical pH levels during the last century.

I said it appears to be. Saying it "appears" is not saying it "was." NOAA use to have that data easily found. It might just be lost on some random link that cannot be found without knowing where to look.

 

[Glitch]

Thing is, years back, I have seen the studies that showed the ocean pH was lower than today. Modern search engines tend to generate only popular searches and paid for links as results. I have not been able to find the papers I have seen before.

I miss Alta Vista.

I miss the Veronica search engine for the Gopher protocol, but you learn to adapt.

 

[Glitch]

I said it appears to be. Saying it "appears" is not saying it "was." NOAA use to have that data easily found. It might just be lost on some random link that cannot be found without knowing where to look.

I'm sure it is available somewhere. However, based on NOAA's own assessment of that data, I'm not sure you want to find it. Even if you did find it, what would it accomplish? We already know that it cannot be trusted as accurate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I miss the Veronica search engine for the Gopher protocol, but you learn to adapt.

Google and the others are a POS compared to real search engines of the past that didn't sell priority.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I'm sure it is available somewhere. However, based on NOAA's own assessment of that data, I'm not sure you want to find it. Even if you did find it, what would it accomplish? We already know that it cannot be trusted as accurate.

It's more accurate than Mann's Hockey Stick.

 

[istodolez]

It's more accurate than Mann's Hockey Stick.

What does the Hockey Stick have to do with ocean pH measurements?

 

[Threegoofs]

Thing is, years back, I have seen the studies that showed the ocean pH was lower than today. Modern search engines tend to generate only popular searches and paid for links as results. I have not been able to find the papers I have seen before.

I miss Alta Vista.

Yeah. You saw it on WUWT.

 

[Threegoofs]

That's not what I believe. The digital world just has too much information to sort through and find when using search engines that favor profit.

I wish you would stop baiting me with such remarks. It would be nice, if for once, you had something productive to add to a debate.

So ‘scrubbed’ means ‘I can’t find it on Google’?

As someone once told me, ‘words have meaning’.

If you want me to stop ridiculing you, stop using words like ‘scrubbed’ when you mean to say something else.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What does the Hockey Stick have to do with ocean pH measurements?

Nothing. I'm saying the proxies used are more numerous and not cherry picked in those older studies showing ocean pH than what Mann used.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yeah. You saw it on WUWT.

So?

It appears so many other places too.

Is anything that appears there automatically void?

 

[Threegoofs]

So?

It appears so many other places too.

Is anything that appears there automatically void?

Yes, everyone else got it from...WUWT.

But somehow you don’t see the issue. Funny that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, everyone else got it from...WUWT.

But somehow you don’t see the issue. Funny that.

But I took the graph from a different site. Not WUWT. Why are you doing this? Why are you using logical fallacies?

Poisoning the Well

To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

 

[Threegoofs]

But I took the graph from a different site. Not WUWT. Why are you doing this? Why are you using logical fallacies?

Poisoning the Well

To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent. That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim.

www.logicallyfallacious.com

Yes. Taking it from a different site (which one? Deniers.R.Us.com?) sure makes using a graph originating at WUWT totally legit.

I mean, its peer reviewed, because you are a peer to the ignorant deniers who originally posted it, and you think its accurate, amirite?

 

[istodolez]

But I took the graph from a different site.

What site did you get it from?

 

[Lord of Planar]

What site did you get it from?

I don't remember. Why does it matter? One day, I will probably come across one or more of the papers I have seen before. If I post them showing this graph is correct, what will your response be?

 

[istodolez]

I don't remember. Why does it matter?

It matters because "provenance" matters. If it comes from WUWT that's fine and dandy. The WUWT folks relied on something for the data. It's best to go with primary sources.

I don't know if you recall Lord Monckton a few years back took perfectly legit data and drew a grossly misleading regression line through it and drew a denialist talking point conclusion from data that was actually from legitimate data. I'm not saying Watts did that, but it helps to have the original source material.

One day, I will probably come across one or more of the papers I have seen before. If I post them showing this graph is correct, what will your response be?

I hope you do! I would be interested to see this. Considering that, as I noted yesterday, the 1950's were hardly a boon time for ocean pH measurements I'd be interested to know where the data came from and how it compares.

The problem with many denialists is that it is "all or nothing" with them. Indeed there MIGHT be data showing changes in pH over time that are not clearly explained by global CO2 emissions. I suspect that it won't change the overall concept much though. Considering that we KNOW that increased atmospheric CO2 will lead to lower pH of the water column and we KNOW that a large amount of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere over the last half century or more is due to human activities through the isotopic composition of the C. So it really won't make much difference to the overall point: human activities are leading to ocean acidification. It's pretty straightforward.

 

[Threegoofs]

I don't remember. Why does it matter? One day, I will probably come across one or more of the papers I have seen before. If I post them showing this graph is correct, what will your response be?

I’ve told you, it was CREATED on WUWT.

You’re so incurious, you don’t even know ehrrr your own information comes from.
Yet you know more than the scientists who study this.

 

[istodolez]

I’ve told you, it was CREATED on WUWT.

You’re so incurious, you don’t even know ehrrr your own information comes from.
Yet you know more than the scientists who study this.

It is a luxury of the non-scientist to randomly pick and choose data without worrying where it came from. Science often requires a lot of focus on the provenance of information which is why they rely so much on "references" and "citations". Interestingly enough the WUWT graph Lord posted does have some oblique references to other data but lists them by "number" (data sources 1, 2, and 5 or some such). This means that it would be possible to go back to Watt's Denialist Blog and dig up that raw data I suppose. But it wasn't clear on the Watt's graph provided.

This is a technicality, yes, but an important one. As opposed to randomly picking apart someone's use of common phrases THIS is the kind of detail that shows "professionalism" in the sciences as opposed to simply "interested hobbyist".

 

[Lord of Planar]

It matters because "provenance" matters. If it comes from WUWT that's fine and dandy. The WUWT folks relied on something for the data. It's best to go with primary sources.

I don't know if you recall Lord Monckton a few years back took perfectly legit data and drew a grossly misleading regression line through it and drew a denialist talking point conclusion from data that was actually from legitimate data. I'm not saying Watts did that, but it helps to have the original source material.



I hope you do! I would be interested to see this. Considering that, as I noted yesterday, the 1950's were hardly a boon time for ocean pH measurements I'd be interested to know where the data came from and how it compares.

The problem with many denialists is that it is "all or nothing" with them. Indeed there MIGHT be data showing changes in pH over time that are not clearly explained by global CO2 emissions. I suspect that it won't change the overall concept much though. Considering that we KNOW that increased atmospheric CO2 will lead to lower pH of the water column and we KNOW that a large amount of the excess CO2 in the atmosphere over the last half century or more is due to human activities through the isotopic composition of the C. So it really won't make much difference to the overall point: human activities are leading to ocean acidification. It's pretty straightforward.

I hope you put an equally critical eye on sites like Skeptical Science.

they are worse!

How many times have I linked WUWT?

How many times have you linked Skeptical Science?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I’ve told you, it was CREATED on WUWT.

Really now.

Prove it please.

You’re so incurious, you don’t even know ehrrr your own information comes from.
Yet you know more than the scientists who study this.

You don't either, but pretend to...

I have seen a graph very similar, if not identical, years ago. I can say with certainty, it was not created at WUWT.